Unregistered, as a new member your first 5 posts will be subject to moderation.
So if your post is submitted successfully, but does not show up immediately, please be patient, as it may take some time for a moderator to approve it.
Please don't double post.

It seems like the responses in this thread are geared toward defining the issue in a way that demonizes some people as fitting the criteria and absolves others because they don't. I don't see what is so important about differentiating a teenager "addicted" to ice cream from a meth addict addicted to sex. Sure, one seems more extreme from a cultural perspective, but the interesting thing to me about analyzing such things in a scientific way is that you can cut through the bias and look straight at the issues. E.g. can a person walk away from ice cream without withdrawal symptoms and can they walk away from sexual habits as easily, and if not why and is that a problem? If it is a problem, what can and/or should be done about it? I'm sorry if I don't care as much about the DSM as some other people might. To me, it is a resource for institutional behavioral police. I am more interested in the fundamental philosophy of it with the ultimate goal of people thinking for themselves and policing themselves. I'm not saying there's nothing beneficial about DSM-based interventions. There may indeed be. I'm just not thinking on that level. I'm more interested in getting beyond the buzz of the buzzwords to think about the depth of these issues.

That's the problem. You are trying to discuss what amounts to buzzwords w/o out the buzz. That won't work because things like addiction and compulsion are made up buzzwords to cover a set definition. I'm not saying that the discussion you want to have is invalid. I'm just not sure how you would approach it in away that doesn't use buzzwords in the first place.

That's the problem. You are trying to discuss what amounts to buzzwords w/o out the buzz. That won't work because things like addiction and compulsion are made up buzzwords to cover a set definition. I'm not saying that the discussion you want to have is invalid. I'm just not sure how you would approach it in away that doesn't use buzzwords in the first place.

I don't know if it's that important to avoid buzzwords. The challenge is to keep it relevant and constructive. If addiction is a relevant issue in people's lives, it shouldn't matter if it's popular to 'buzz' about it or not, should it? I think the big problem with 'buzz' and sensationalism is that the only point is to obfuscate everything instead of addressing it constructively. People are uncomfortable with directly confronting issues so they hide behind buzz, I think.

I know a few guys who secretly fantasize about a 'real nympho' coming along. I have been accused of nymphomania too . Is this by know an old-fashioned, defunct term? I'm bothered with it mainly because in common usage, it seems to refer to any woman who has larger than average interest in sex. When I was called a nympho I pointed out that from my reading, nymphomaniacs are not so much interested in sex itself as in sex with steadily changing flow of partners, meaning that they rarely seek out the same person twice.

I read one woman's story who had lost count of her sexual partners after she hit 5 000 something in her early thirties. She regularly dragged home men from under the bridge with serious hygiene and cognitive coherence issues, and got into commercial sex, not for the money but for the feeling of being desired and wanted she got out of it. She had been raped and mugged multiple times, had every STD in the book and a handful of abortions. She hit her own personal rock bottom when she became involved in the BDSM scene and started out an erotic relationship with another woman. I figured she no longer could justify that behaviour to herself as pleasurable because she had no interest in either, just a compelling need to widen her pool of available partners.

She noted that she got very little out of her contacts when it came to sexual pleasure, since more often the guys were unable to follow through. It was more the feeling of being powerful, of being able to get whom she wanted, just point a finger and say 'You're coming home with me'. In her past she had been sexually abused so for a while, that probably was healing in itself, but I think she got addicted to the feeling and could not figure any alternative ways to achieve the same sense of self-mastery.

Maybe too much of an assumption on my part. Usually when people start defining addiction in a way that excludes some and labels others, it's because they see it as little more than a stigmatizing label. I find it very liberating to know that practically everyone experiences addiction in some way(s) or other; so there's really no reason to engage in denial vs. labeling/accusation.

Maybe too much of an assumption on my part. Usually when people start defining addiction in a way that excludes some and labels others, it's because they see it as little more than a stigmatizing label. I find it very liberating to know that practically everyone experiences addiction in some way(s) or other; so there's really no reason to engage in denial vs. labeling/accusation.

Yes, I think you did make a quick assumption. There is a difference between sharing definitions and pondering them in a conversation, and pontificating. Everyone here has simply contributed different viewpoints for consideration, from what I've seen. No demonizing, no denying, no accusing. People here are simply conversing and sharing ideas.

Yes, I think you did make a quick assumption. There is a difference between sharing definitions and pondering them in a conversation, and pontificating. Everyone here has simply contributed different viewpoints for consideration, from what I've seen. No demonizing, no denying, no accusing. People here are simply conversing and sharing ideas.

I think it's been an interesting discussion. The only reason at all I would mention the DSM or anything like it is because when it comes to my field, to qualify someone as being substance addicted, there are actual criteria that must be met.

Someone can also have life issues involving a substance, such as alcohol, and not be addicted to it. And someone else can use a substance, like alcohol and not have any life issues because of it. There is a continuum (isn't there always?), and it's not on or off, black or white, bad or good. And how the person deals with it won't be the same from one person to the next either.

I myself have many compulsive behaviors. Some have gotten in the way of my life at one time or another, some not so much. I'm not addicted to anything. Though I do like sex a whole big bunch.

I know a few guys who secretly fantasize about a 'real nympho' coming along. I have been accused of nymphomania too . Is this by know an old-fashioned, defunct term? I'm bothered with it mainly because in common usage, it seems to refer to any woman who has larger than average interest in sex. When I was called a nympho I pointed out that from my reading, nymphomaniacs are not so much interested in sex itself as in sex with steadily changing flow of partners, meaning that they rarely seek out the same person twice.

I read one woman's story who had lost count of her sexual partners after she hit 5 000 something in her early thirties. She regularly dragged home men from under the bridge with serious hygiene and cognitive coherence issues, and got into commercial sex, not for the money but for the feeling of being desired and wanted she got out of it. She had been raped and mugged multiple times, had every STD in the book and a handful of abortions. She hit her own personal rock bottom when she became involved in the BDSM scene and started out an erotic relationship with another woman. I figured she no longer could justify that behaviour to herself as pleasurable because she had no interest in either, just a compelling need to widen her pool of available partners.

She noted that she got very little out of her contacts when it came to sexual pleasure, since more often the guys were unable to follow through. It was more the feeling of being powerful, of being able to get whom she wanted, just point a finger and say 'You're coming home with me'. In her past she had been sexually abused so for a while, that probably was healing in itself, but I think she got addicted to the feeling and could not figure any alternative ways to achieve the same sense of self-mastery.

And that was kind of my point. It doesn't seem like (from the story you've told) that it was the sex itself she was addicted to, or the "feelings" of orgasms. The fact that she was sexually abused isn't a minor part of this story, it might be the main factor. For her, there could definitely be a usage of sex as either a "connection" with someone, or more likely a way to "control". Especially since she most likely felt so out of control when it came to sex during her formative years. Her way of dealing with that feeling could have been to control others through sex.

Just some thoughts, I don't know this person. My earlier point was that she might have been labeled a "sex addict" when she most likely is a very troubled sexual abuse survivor who needs some help so that she can learn to deal with the sexual abuse without hurting herself. She's not addicted to sex. She compulsively uses sex to feel in control. Again, underlying issues that need to be brought forth and dealth with.

She's not addicted to sex. She compulsively uses sex to feel in control. Again, underlying issues that need to be brought forth and dealth with.

When you mention control disorders, the first thing that comes to mind is anorexia. However, since we're talking about sex addiction, sexual anorexia comes to mind as an anorexia parallel having to do with sex. Why is this parallel association relevant? Well, I'm thinking about someone like Tiger Woods as maybe not so much having sex-addiction as his main problem as being addicted to monogamy and all the perks of a happy marriage and high public regard that come with it. So you could maybe say that he was simply experiencing exploratory sexual desire but his deceit was a symptom of his monogamy-addiction. What he actually did was not so much sexual anorexia as sexual bulimia, with the characteristic "binging and purging" only instead of food being binged and purged, it was sexual affairs. I may be assuming too much since I only know this case superficially, but I just saw it as an interesting parallel for this topic. I think addiction is occurring whenever there is a significant reward/pleasure that someone can't comfortably go without, regardless of when it reaches a level that meets DSM standards. Probably most addictions occur at relatively harmless levels and are really just something the (potential) addict should pay attention to so as to avoid things getting worse. Also, it's just interesting to see how addiction plays a role in so many ways people are unaware of. I would never thought of monogamy as being addictive, for example, until just now.